- PTAB · Jan 27, 2025 · IPR2024-01133 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–13, finding a reasonable likelihood that Weaver anticipates certain claims and the asserted Weaver combinations render the remaining claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“On balance, we determine that Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor discretionary denial of institution: factors 1, 4, and 5 are neutral and factors 2 and 3 weigh at least slightly against exercising discretion to deny institution. As a result, for this factor 6, we need not decide whether Petitioner presents a compelling unpatentability challenge on the merits. See CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 4–5 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (decision on Director review) (precedential) (“[I]n circumstances where the Board determines that the other Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor discretionary denial, the Board shall decline to discretionarily deny under Fintiv without reaching the compelling merits analysis.”). 7. Conclusion on Discretionary Denial Under § 314(a) As noted in Fintiv, we consider the above six factors when taking “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. We determine that, weighing these factors in a holistic analysis, the circumstances here favoring institution outweigh the overlapping of issues in the district court litigation. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the interests of efficiency and integrity of the system would be best served by invoking our authority under § 314(a) to deny institution of this Petition.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“IV. CONCLUSION Because we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, we institute inter partes review as to all challenged claims and grounds presented in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2024). At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final determination as to the patentability of any of these challenged claims. V. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 1–13 of the ’509 patent to determine whether: 1) claims 1–5, 9, 12, and 13 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Weaver; 2) claims 6–8 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Weaver and Lee ’053; 3) claim 6–8 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Weaver and Song; 4) claims 10 and 11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Weaver and Lee ’149; 5) claims 10 and 11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Weaver and Bae; 6) claims 1–5, 9, 12, and 13 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Weaver and Gupta or Han; 7) claims 6–8 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Weaver, Lee ’053, and Gupta or Han; 8) claims 6–8 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Weaver, Song, and Gupta or Han; 9) claims 10 and 11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Weaver, Lee ’149, and Gupta or Han; and 10) claims 10 and 11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Weaver, Bae, and Gupta or Han. FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and” slip op. at 35
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In view of the plain language of the claims and the Specification, we determine that the term “auxiliary electrode” recited in claim 1 is neither limited to an anode or cathode, nor precludes “a power line, bus line, or resistor” or any electrode that “provides a sole, critical electrical connection to a load.” We determine no further explicit construction of this term is necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We find Patent Owner’s arguments unavailing. In particular, we find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that “‘bus line 430’ is not an ‘electrode’” (Prelim. Resp. 4), because Patent Owner is relying on a claim construction of “electrode,” requiring “an anode” or “cathode” and excluding a “bus line” (id. at 16), that is not adopted by our construction discussed above. Thus, we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that Weaver fails to disclose the “auxiliary electrode” limitation because “Weaver never refers to its ‘bus line 430’ as an anode, cathode, or electrode.” Id. Although Patent Owner contends that “bus line 430 is not ‘auxiliary’ or ‘supplemental’ to anything” (Prelim. Resp. 4), we are persuaded by Petitioner’s reliance on Weaver’s bus line 430 for providing the claimed “electrode,” that is “supplemental to other electrodes in the structure.” Pet. 18; see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 26, Fig. 4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 92. We find availing Petitioner’s contention, supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that a POSITA would have understood that “anode 406 and bus line 430 are connected in parallel,” which means that “bus line 430 is a supplemental electrode that reduces the total resistance of the pixel structure.” Pet. 19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 94. Thus, we find availing Petitioner’s contention, supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that Weaver’s bus line 430 is an electrode supplemental to other electrodes in the structure that is electrically insulated from transistor 410 by passivation layer 409, wherein OLED 400, which includes cathode 422, organic layer 424, and anode 406, is disposed above bus line 430, and wherein anode 406 of OLED 400 is electrically connected to bus line 430 by via 428. Pet. 16–19; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 89–94. That is, we find availing Petitioner’s contention, which Patent Owner does not contest, that, like the ’509 patent’s auxiliary electrode 120, bus line 430 is electrically insulated from transistor 410, wherein OLED 400 is disposed above bus line 430 and anode 406 electrically connected with bus line 430. Id.; also compare Pet. 2–3 (annotated Figure 2 of the ’509 patent) with id. at 16, 20 (annotated Figure 4 of Weaver). On this preliminary record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Weaver teaches “a first auxiliary electrode electrically insulated from the active device,” and “a light emitting device disposed above the first auxiliary electrode,” wherein “the light emitting device comprises a first electrode layer electrically connected with the first auxiliary electrode.”” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,263,509 - Vusiongroup SA v. Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01045 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of its four § 103 grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. At best, Schwartz’s disclosure cited by Petitioner teaches aggregating product information obtained from different stores, but neither the Petition nor Dr. Wolfe explains sufficiently how aggregating product information would have suggested cross-correlating different product facing bounding boxes to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Pet. 35–37; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 148–151. We are not persuaded that aggregating product information and cross-correlating different product facing bounding boxes would have been recognized as similar or comparable processes. Moreover, Petitioner does not even assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Schwartz cross-correlates one or more product facing bounding boxes and one or more other product facing bounding boxes as required by limitation [1.5]. Instead, Petitioner asserts only that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized Schwartz . . . cross-correlates that product and affiliated shelf added). Furthermore, limitation [1.5] recites cross-correlating different product facing bounding boxes by matching shelf label content of the different product facing bounding boxes. But Petitioner does not explain adequately how the combination of Schwartz and Katircioglu satisfies this requirement. Pet. 35–37. Although Petitioner asserts that the combination discloses associating shelf label content with product facing bounding boxes (id. at 30–35), we are not directed to any disclosure in either Schwartz or Katircioglu that teaches or suggests matching the shelf label content of different product facing bounding boxes. For the above reasons, Petitioner fails to persuade us that the combination of Schwartz and Katircioglu discloses limitation [1.5]. Therefore, we determine Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood it would prevail with respect to the contention that claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Schwartz and Katircioglu.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in November 2016 would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and two or more years of work experience or research related to computer vision, image analytics, machine learning, artificial intelligence or automated object recognition methods and systems, or equivalent training and work experience in the field. Formal education can substitute for work experience and relevant work experience could substitute for formal education. Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 29). Patent Owner indicates it agrees with Petitioner’s definition of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 4–5. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior definition.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “[n]o formal claim constructions are necessary ‘to resolve the controversy.’” Pet. 9 (quoting Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Petitioner adds that there is a rebuttable presumption that § 112(f) does not apply because the challenged claims do not recite “means.” Id. In the event the presumption is overcome with respect to the claim terms “processor” and “product classifier,” Petitioner identifies the disclosure describing the corresponding structure for these terms. Id. at 9–10. Patent Owner contends that claim construction is not necessary and the claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Prelim. Resp. 5. Regarding the claim terms “processor” and “product classifier,” Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not advanced any argument to rebut the presumption that § 112(f) does not apply. Id. at 6. any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,087,272 - PTAB · Dec 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00963 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 on all asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on each challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Patent Owner contends we should exercise discretion to deny institution because the court has not considered a motion to stay (Factor 1), jury selection in the District Court Litigation is scheduled to begin on February 17, 2026 (Factor 2), the parties have invested substantially in discovery by exchanging a high volume of documents and conducting extensive source code reviews (Factor 3), there is a high overlap between the challenged claims and those involved in the District Court Litigation (Factor 4), the parties are the same (Factor 5), and Petitioner’s arguments are meritless (Factor 6). Prelim. Resp. 35–36. Patent Owner acknowledges that jury selection in the District Court Litigation will not begin until two months after a Final Written Decision is scheduled to issue in this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 35. On October 17, 2024, Petitioner offered the following Sotera Stipulation: “VusionGroup will not pursue an invalidity defense in Hanshow Tech. Co., Ltd. et al. v. SES-imagotag SA et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00617 (E.D. Tex.) that the patent claims subject to the instituted IPR are invalid based on the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Ex. 1031. In view of all the circumstances, including the scheduled trial date and Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“XI. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will succeed on each of its challenges to patentability and we institute inter partes review. XII. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) an inter partes review of the ’321 Patent is hereby instituted, commencing on the entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial. FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is authorized on all grounds set forth in the Petition; and.” slip op. at 39
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner
“1999)); see also Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Petitioner asserts that “[n]o formal claim constructions are necessary in this proceeding.” Pet. 6. Nevertheless, Petitioner also proposes constructions of certain “system” limitations, should the Board determine that the claims recite “means plus function” limitations, and argues that interpreted this way, such claims would be indefinite because they lack disclosure of sufficient algorithms for the claimed functions. Pet. 6–7. Petitioner acknowledges that, because the claims do not use the term “means,” there is a presumption against their being interpreted as means plus function limitations and that purported indefiniteness does not preclude the Board from addressing the patent patentability of the claims on sections 102 and 103 grounds. Id. (citing Sony Elecs. Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC, IPR2023-01352, Paper 7, 47 (PTAB Mar. 6, 2024); Ex. 1003 Houh Decl. ¶¶ 51–52); see also Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Patent Owner argues the claims do not recite means plus function limitations and agrees with Petitioner that no claim construction is required. Prelim. Resp. 7–8. The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by person of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. Williamson F.3d at 1349, Dyfan LLC v Target Corp., 28 F.4th 1360, 1365–1366 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see also Zeroclick LLC v. Apple Inc., 819 F.3d 1003, 1008–1009 (Fed. Cir 2018). Having reviewed the claims and the Specification, for purposes of institution, we determine that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood the subject matter that is claimed to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure so additional claim construction is required.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner describes a person of ordinary skill (“POSITA” or “ordinarily skilled artisan”) as having “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and two or more years of work experience or research related to computer vision, image analytics or automated object recognition methods and systems. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003, Houh Decl. ¶¶ 18–19). Petitioner also states that “[a]dditional education in a relevant field or relevant industry experience may compensate for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above.” Id. For purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Prelim. Resp. 7. 5 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the ’321 patent issued from an application filed after March 16, 2013, we apply the AIA statutory basis for unpatentability. 6 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0195363 (Ex. 1005) 7 U.S. Patent No. 8,139,817 (Ex. 1006) 8 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0113461 (Ex. 1007) 9 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0044348 (Ex. 1009) 10 U.S. Patent No. 8,634,601 (Ex. 1008) references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As Petitioner’s undisputed description of the level of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the scope of the subject matters claimed and the references, we apply Petitioner’s description in this proceeding.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,701,321 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00857 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–19, with trial authorized on all petition grounds, based on a reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted obviousness challenges.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinarily skilled artisan”) as having “a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical or computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field with two or more years of work experience with low-power connected devices.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003, Wolfe Decl. ¶ 29). Petitioner further states that “[a]dditional education in a relevant field or relevant industry experience may compensate for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above.” Id. For purposes if its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Prelim Resp. 7–8. The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As Petitioner’s undisputed description of a person of ordinary skill appears consistent with the subject matter of the ’216 patent and the references, we apply Petitioner’s standard for purposes of this Decision. slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted) (en banc). “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). Extrinsic evidence is “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining ‘the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (citations omitted). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms ... that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Neither party has proposed a special definition or explicit construction of any claim term. Pet. 7; Prelim. Resp. 8. As we do not perceive a need to construe any term, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning to the claim language.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“X. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will succeed on the following challenges to patentability: Claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11–15, 18, 19 as obvious over Nagata and the knowledge of a person of ordinarily skill in the art; Claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11–15, 18, and 19 as obvious over Nagata in view of Hashiguchi; and or Nagata in view of Hashiguchi and Thubert. XI. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) an inter partes” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“short intervals of time and communicates at a rapid interval (e.g.,150 msec every 4 sec). Id. at 55 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 70, 127–128, 138–139; Ex. 1003, Wolfe Decl. ¶ 158). Petitioner further notes that, although both Nagata and Hashiguchi transmit beacon signals synchronized to the awake modes of the labels to indicate the presence of information from an access point at scheduled, repetitive times, Nagata and Hashiguchi operate a little differently. Id. at 56. In particular, Nagata transmits a beacon signal synchronized to the electronic label wake-up time once every 60 seconds and varies the duration of the label’s awake mode (e.g., 30 seconds when the beacon indicates information to be transmitted is present); but Hashiguchi transmits a beacon signal synchronized with the electronic label’s awake time ratio, communicating beacons that correspond to the wake-up frequency, where the label listens for information for 150 msec in either a fast command mode (every 4 seconds or 15 times per minute) or a normal command mode (every 20 seconds or 3 times per minute). Id. at 56–57, 59– 60. Petitioner emphasizes that this feature allows Hashiguchi to improve its responsiveness, while reducing battery power drain, providing a reason for an ordinarily skilled artisan to combine th teachings of the references. Id. at 56–58. Noting that, like Nagata’s beacon signals, Hashiguchi’s beacon signals are sent at synchronized and prescribed time intervals in a manner that is indistinguishable from Nagata, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to cure the defects of Nagata concerning the claimed fast wake-up instruction. Prelim. Resp. 23–24. As discussed above, the claim limitations do not exclude synchronous systems that transmit beacons signals or enter the fast and normal wake-up our analysis of Nagata (see Section IX.B herein), we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Nagata and Hashiguchi and that their combined teachings would have disclosed or suggested all the limitations of the independent claims 1, 7, and 14 and their corresponding dependent claims to such an ordinarily skilled artisan.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,540,216 - Aptiv Services US, LCC v. Microchip Technology Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00803 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–18 obvious over Verhaege, Verhaege and Miller, or Ker.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine “that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any claim challenged in the Petition. Thus, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“(‘POSITA’) in the field of the ’665 patent in 2007 would have at least a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field and three to five years of experience in integrated circuit design.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s definition is “excessively high.” Prelim. Resp. 3 n.1. In Patent Owner’s view, “a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or an equivalent technical degree and two years of experience in mixed-signal (i.e., analog/digital) circuit design.” Id. (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 30–34). We need not resolve this dispute because our decision would be the same under either definition.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). In Patent Owner’s view, “the claims require sharing ESD charge from one pad with a different I/O pad.” Prelim. Resp. 27. Patent Owner argues that charge sharing is the only way that charging the pad capacitance can reduce a maximum voltage, as recited. Id. at 24–25. Apart from the charge sharing, Patent Owner argues that the recited enable or control circuitry is not located in the circuit where the ESD event occurs. Id. at 27–33. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner disagrees with this interpretation. Id. Petitioner, though, argues that it would have been obvious to duplicate Verhaege’s and Ker’s protection circuits. See, e.g., id. at 18 (discussing claim 1 and Verhaege), 48 (discussing the Verhaege-Miller combination), 66 (discussing claim 1 and Kerr). For example, Petitioner argues that “a POSITA would have been motivated to use the improved protection circuit of Verhaege, apply it at every I/O pad, and share the ESD energy across multiple pad circuits as taught by Miller.” See id. at 48 (emphasis added). From statements like these, Patent Owner draws the conclusion that Petitioner must also be interpreting the claims to require charge sharing. Prelim. Resp. 25–27. For the reasons discussed in Section II.C below, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of showing that any claims are unpatentable even under the implied claim construction used in its obviousness rationale. The Board need not expressly construe any claims in reaching that conclusion.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner argues, “It would have been obvious to a POSITA that, because an ESD event could occur at any I/O pad, the Verhaege invention should be repeated at every I/O pad.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 67); id at 30–32 (claim 6); id. at 43 (claim 14). Yet Petitioner acknowledges that “there were many obvious ways to activate multiple circuits during an ESD event.” Id. at 51. The Petition does not sufficiently explain why it would have been obvious to have chosen the way that is claimed. See id. at 18, 30– 32, 43. Rather, Petitioner’s obviousness rationale appears to be based on impermissible hindsight gleaned entirely from the challenged patent’s 1327, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“It appears that [the expert] relied on the . . . patent itself as her roadmap for putting what she referred to as pieces of a ‘jigsaw puzzle’ together.”). For this additional reason, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenges to claims 1, 6, and 14.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,564,665 - Netflix, Inc. v. Gotv Streaming, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00758 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–14, and 16–21 are unpatentable as obvious over Hariki and Harris; claims 4, 11, 15, and 22–33 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMixed
“in the browser,” e.g., content resulting from HTML files received from the web server. Ex. 2029, 68:15–18. Accordingly, an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have understood that customizing” the “application program environment or display and sound aspects of the device” using a UI content package “would mean that the converted resources (i.e., ‘custom configuration’) of the UI content package were applicable to all HTML files received from the web server and displayed” by the web browser program. Ex. 1002 ¶ 159; see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19, 24, 42.” slip op. at 105
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to exclude evidence (Paper 30) is dismissed as moot; and” slip op. at 134
Patent outcomesUS 8,478,245 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,478,245 - Netflix, Inc. v. Gotv Streaming, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00757 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–10, and 12–16 are unpatentable as obvious over Hariki and Harris; claims 3, 11, and 17–20 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner
“Alleged Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness (i) General Principles Before reaching a conclusion about obviousness, we consider evidence concerning objective indicia of nonobviousness. See Apple, 839 F.3d at 1048. For such evidence to have substantial weight, the patentee “must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.” ClassCo, 838 F.3d at 1220. “[T]here is no nexus unless the evidence presented is ‘reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims.’” Id. (quoting Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). The patentee “bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists.” WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A rebuttable presumption of nexus arises “when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Whether a rebuttable presumption of nexus arises “turns on the nature of the claims and the specific facts.” Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH v. Eli Lilly & Co., 8 F.4th 1349, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The presumption analysis should consider the unclaimed features in the product tied to the objective evidence to assess their significance and impact on the correspondence between the patented invention and the product. Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar USA, Inc., 24 F.4th 1406, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2022). When, “for example, the patented invention is only a small component of the product tied to the objective evidence,” and thus the product is not coextensive with the patented invention, “there is no presumption of nexus.” Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Absent a presumption of nexus, the patentee may prove nexus by showing that the objective evidence resulted directly from “the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373–74; see In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996). For example, “[a] prima facie case of nexus is generally made out when the patentee shows both that there is commercial success, and that the thing (product or method) that is commercially successful is the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent.” Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Circ. 1988).” slip op. at 113
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMixed
“Conclusion About Obviousness/Nonobviousness For the reasons discussed above, the combined disclosures in Hariki” slip op. at 119
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedNot reached
“In our analyses above, we do not rely on any of Exhibits 2023 to 2027. See, e.g., supra §§ III.C.2–III.C.4. Hence, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion to exclude evidence as moot. See, e.g., Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. v. Spero, IPR2023-00335, Paper 40 at 24 (PTAB July 15, 2024) (dismissing motion to exclude evidence as moot).” slip op. at 135
Patent outcomesUS 8,989,715 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,989,715 - Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · IPR2022-01421 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 8–24, and 26–30 as obvious over Roese, Golnabi, Huima, and Hayter; claims 6, 7, and 25 with Esbensen added.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, supported by Dr. Jacobson’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, four years of industry experience, and a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attacks.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37). Patent Owner does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art, and points to an equivalent level adopted in the ’148 FWD. See PO Resp. 6. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelMixed
“Issue preclusion [(i.e., collateral estoppel)] is appropriate only if: (1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“caching occur “while the rule sets are being swapped.” Id. at 14–15. Patent Owner recites the surrounding steps or processes to the “caching the one or more packets” limitation, and asserts that the limitation requires “the packets are cached while the rule sets are being swapped.” Id. Although Patent Owner has provided the context of the claim limitation, we are not persuaded that such a stricture needs to be imported into the claim limitation itself. The “caching the one or more packets” limitation itself does not require that such caching can only occur while the rule sets are being swapped. The plain meaning of caching packets alone does not require such a restriction. The independent claims employ “comprising” language and could allow, for example, for the caching of packets, after the signal to process packets in accordance with the second rule set has been received, even if the swapping of rule sets has not yet occurred. Patent Owner’s construction attempts to incorporate other aspects of the claims into a single limitation that is not so limited under its plain and ordinary meaning. We are not persuaded that specifying when the caching occurs, i.e., while the rule sets are being swapped, is integral to the plain and ordinary meaning of “caching the one or more packets.”” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“to its temporal aspect of when caching of packets occurs, i.e., its claim construction that such caching occurs during a swapping of rule sets. As discussed above in Section II.B, we are not persuaded that the limitation “caching the one or more packets” requires that the caching must occur only while the rule sets are swapped. We are persuaded, however, that Roese, Huima and Hayter teach, as proposed by Petitioner, the caching of at least some portion of a packet while rule sets are being swapped. the rapid response identifier signal is received, the response system initiates the process of configuring the forwarding engine with the one or more policies and/or PERs, and Huima teaches that in response to receiving a signal to change the rule set, packet processing pauses. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 47, 52; Ex. 1006 ¶ 31. We agree with Petitioner’s assertion that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a network device should pause the processing of any pending packets and any incoming packets that arrive after the instruction to change the rule set but before the change is completed, in view of Roese and Huima. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 171). Further, we continue to be persuaded that Hayter teaches using a packet processor with an integrated cache to store at least portions of packets in the L2 cache, and we are persuaded that such storage would occur while awaiting processing to begin again. Pet. 39–40 (citing Ex. 1007, 1:40–48, 3:53–59, 6:3–26, 24:34– 36; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 178–179). We are persuaded that this teaches or suggests that any caching of packets, or portions thereof, would occur in the period between when a signal is received to change rule sets and when processing of packets reoccurs under the new rule set. As such, we consider Patent Owner’s arguments in the context of whether the combination of Roese, Golnabi, Huima, and Hayter would have taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that entire packets should be cached in the combined system.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 10,681,009 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,681,009 - Netflix, Inc. v. Gotv Streaming, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00759 · APJ Richard M Lebovitz · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20, 31, and 34 were not proven unpatentable under either obviousness ground based on Hariki, Harris, and Dees.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“obviousness”)). Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements,” but “must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“1. Independent Claim 1 The first ground of unpatentability is based on Hariki and Harris. We” slip op. at 27
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted in part
“customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. Patent Owner did not provide evidence that Exs. 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 were available before the invention was made (i.e., Aug. 1, 2007). As shown in the table above, these exhibits have dates identifying information that suggests publication after the effective filing date. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that Exhibits 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 should be excluded as not credible evidence of how one of ordinary skill would have understand the terms recited in the issued claims of the ’865 patent because Petitioner did not establish these definitions were available at the time the invention was made. Consequently, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 is granted.” slip op. at 77
Patent outcomesUS 8,103,865 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,103,865 - Google LLC v. Dialect, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Oct 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00752 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–27 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least claim 1 over Coffman and declining § 325(d) denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“(iii) Conclusion as to Claim 1 We conclude Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable as having been obvious over Coffman.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“synchronizing” of context information and Coffman’s “updating” of context information. See Prelim. Resp. 1–2, 18, 20–23. However, this overlooks that Coffman describes its “updating” of context information as “the exchange of information to coordinate the conversation involving multiple devices,” such as Coffman’s master device and slave devices. Ex. 1003, 22:32–23:15 (emphasis added), 25:10–14, 26:28–27:20. Based on the present record, we are persuaded by Mr. Schmandt’s testimony that this results in synchronization of context information between the devices, such that (for example) the context stack of Coffman’s master device is updated based on the context stack of Coffman’s slave device(s). See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 70–71. This is consistent, for example, with the ’652 patent’s description of “[t]he synchronization process” as “attempt[ing] to determine which version of a data element or an agent are the newest or most up-to-date and propagates that element,” including replacing “a portion of the database.” Ex. 1001, 17:25–32. slip op. at 25
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner appears to be relying on an implicit claim construction that the term “synchronize” requires perfect synchronization, not allowing any deviation between the respective context stacks of the synchronized devices. This implicit claim construction is contradicted by the ’652 patent specification, which contemplates that “[t]he synchronization may be performed automatically when any two or more of the computers are connected to these networks,” or “[a]lternatively . . . the synchronization” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“We conclude, per Advanced Bionics, that the Examiner erred in “overlooking specific teachings” of Coffman / Coffman ’574 when allowing the ’652 patent to issue. Advanced Bionics, at 8–9 & n.9; see also id. at 10 (“[I]f the record of the Office’s previous consideration of the art is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive[.]”). Here, the Examiner cited Coffman ’574 as a considered reference, but did not cite Coffman ’574 as the basis for any claim rejections. See supra Section IV.B.1. Nor did the Examiner express any reasons for allowance over Coffman ’574. See id. Patent Owner’s argument that the Examiner allowed the ’652 patent claims over Coffman ’574 for the same reasons that the Examiner allowed the claims over the unrelated Mumick reference is not supported by the prosecution history evidence. In particular, the Examiner cited Mumick’s synchronization of navigation histories as being different from the claimed synchronization of context stacks/sets. See Ex. 1012, 170–171, 447. Coffman / Coffman ’574, by contrast, specifically discloses context stacks/sets. See supra Section III.E.2(ii) (comparing Coffman with claim 1 of the ’652 patent). Patent Owner does not cite to anything in the prosecution history to establish the Examiner considered the specific teachings of Coffman / Coffman ’574 cited in the Petition as disclosing the synchronization of context stacks/sets recited in claims 1, 14, and 20 of the ’652 patent. Indeed, accepting Patent Owner’s reasoning would prove too much, as it would mean the Examiner concluded all of the twelve initially-cited references (see Ex. 1012, 175) as well as all of the approximately 650 later-cited references (see id. at 450–477) were distinguished from the allowed claims by failing to disclose or suggest synchronizing context stacks/sets, because the same reasons for allowance over Mumick were provided in both instances (see id. at 170–171, 447). Thus, we conclude Petitioner’s case for obviousness over Coffman is not a mere “disagreement with a specific finding of record by the Office” during prosecution of the ’652 patent. Advanced Bionics, at 10–11.” slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,849,652
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.